Under the Hood of Windows 8 or why desktop users should upgrade from Windows 7. It's a short quick read and lays out some more technical reasons of why you would want to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8.

Most mobile platforms recommend you only install apps from approved sources to protect your security, and Windows 8 is the same: it'll only allow you to install trusted (that is, digitally signed) apps from the Windows store.

If this proves a problem, though, and you're willing to take the security risk (because this isn't something to try unless you're entirely sure it's safe), then the system can be configured to run trusted apps from any source.

A week ago I put Windows 8 on my primary computer at home. I've acclimated to it a good deal since then, although there are still annoyances.

By way of for instance, today, I turned on a Windows 8 virtual machine that had been dormant for a while, and so the network settings needed to be adjusted. As is the Windows convention, the network icon in the system tray indicated a problem. I inadvertently clicked instead of right-clicked the icon. A big grey panel slid out from the right side of the screen - and this seems to be standard behavior and not just what happens when there's a network problem. This big grey panel is titled "Networks" and has a heading called "Connections" and then lists your network connections. The thing is: it's totally useless. Clicking or right-clicking on anything listed in the panel does absolutely NOTHING. Now, this isn't a big deal, but it speaks to an occasionally encountered issue with Windows 8: pointless things.

I'm getting quite used to the Start Screen. Turning off live tiles is an absolute necessity for me, as I find them extremely distracting; also, Microsoft puts up 20 tiles initially and I clear away all but 2 of them - Desktop and Calendar - and then I add some basic necessities: tiles for Computer, Control Panel, Task Manager, and Command Prompt. I've found the Start Screen is less antagonistic to dual-monitors than I initially thought. I think the Start Screen isn't quite as efficient as the good old Start Menu for some things but is more efficient for others, and in the end I actually can't decide which is better - the Start Screen or the Start Menu.

I find that most of the new interfaces that Microsoft has provided for configuration (those that are accessed through the Charms) are vastly inferior to the good old Control Panel, which - thank Deus - is still available. I can see that these new interfaces would certainly be easier for touch input, but not for keyboard and mouse, and things feel either hidden or very, er, spread out.

Accessing the "hot corners" (or whatever you want to call them) to bring up the Charms or the App Switcher (does the left-side pane have a name) isn't much of a problem for me, though for children or disabled persons using dual-monitor setups it still possibly could be.

OK, about backup: well, I think it's stupidly stupid. Windows 8 "backup" is called "File History" and details can be found here:http://www.howtogeek.com/123713/how-win ... indows-7s/The way it's set up is so inconceivably dumb to me that I can't find adequately disapproving words. The big problem with it is this: it ONLY BACKS UP FILES THAT ARE ADDED TO LIBRARIES. That is level 10 ridiculous. It's not a deal breaker, but it's just so dumb that I have to rant about it because I'm the ranting type. See, I personally hate Libraries. I hate the feature. I've disabled the feature on Windows 7 from day one. Unfortunately, Microsoft has inserted the "feature" even deeper into the core of Windows 8 such that in Windows 8 the feature cannot be disabled, as far as I can tell, and seeing how the "File History" system works that makes sense. But the whole affair - File History and Libraries - is so stupid. Thankfully, "Windows 7 Backup" is still an available feature and is what I'm using to backup all of my files, which I happen to keep on a second disk (and everything - boot disk and file disk - gets backup up to a 3rd disk; this arrangement has proved useful to me).

My printer doesn't have a compatible driver but somehow the OS sees the printer and prints to it well enough.

I love the Task Manager. I love it. It's great. The coolness of the Task Manager alone can nearly balance out the other nit-picks that I've been mentioning.

Stability is all the way there so far, although a week isn't much of a test duration.

I haven't run into any application incompatibilities.

I quite like the new features in the File Explorer and it's general look and feel.

Right-clicking in the lower-left corner of the screen (the Start Screen corner) brings up and extremely useful menu with shortcuts to the Control Panel and ten other very useful things.

Overall, while being really irritated by the backup situation and by the inability to turn of Libraries, Windows 8 is definitely serviceable. None the less, I think that it has a rough road ahead of it:http://allthingsd.com/20121228/fujitsu- ... nd-either/Fujitsu, Acer, and Asus are all quite unimpressed with Windows 8 sales, even while Microsoft shamelessly claims that sales are stronger than expected, by whatever warped means Microsoft is counting sales.

In Windows 8 we've introduced a new printer driver architecture, which we call version 4, or v4. The v4 architecture produces smaller, faster printer drivers, and it supports the idea of a print class driver framework--a system that allows people to install their printers without having to locate a driver for that device, in many cases.

flip-mode wrote:l-g, you make the most hyperbolic statements possible. The fact that you can't tone down your rhetoric is really frustrating. Where Windows 8 might inflict a paper cut you make it out to be a beheading. Then a person reading your comments has two options: embrace the obviously overblown nonsense that you're spouting, or totally dismiss you. If you could keep yourself from sensationalizing every point you want to make, your comments would be a lot more useful. As it is, your comments sound like the ravings of an emotionally/mentally unstable tinfoil salesman.

And the suggestion that gaming on Linux will bring down Windows is so monumentally clueless that I feel like a tool for even addressing it. People have needs beyond gaming. Until you get Adobe and Autodesk and some other ISVs to port everything to Linux and until you can talk all the Windows network sysadmins into making the switch, Windows will be a dominant presence. Forget Linux, even Apple hasn't been able to displace Windows from corporate networks.

( I feel quite foolish for wasting my time typing this up. )

It would not let me quote your first post in this thread which was spot on, then I actually made it this far and found this one as well and its even better......................................there is no way possible of having anything approximating an adult conversation with someone like this fellow, frustrating is putting it mildly but honestly I just have pity for people who view the world as they do.

Its like this genius expects a perfect operating system, ya, thats going to happen anytime soon, but I suppose he is perfect...................................., just ask him.

I switched to win 8 because the price was right, 40 bucks, come on now.

l33t-g4m3r wrote:LOL. Quite funny, and Valve would be a huge market driver, being the biggest digital distributor of games around. It doesn't matter how Valve runs it's store either, since linux is an open platform. The real improvements are from increased driver and software support, and bigger userbase. Linux costs nothing to try, and steam should encourage gamers tired of windows to try something new, provided everything works out of the box hassle free. Once things get to an acceptable level, people will simply stop buying windows. It's not going to be instantaneous, nor will Microsoft completely die off, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

BIF wrote:Aero. Here we go, this is a HUGE one for me. Aero features and glass actually HELPED me see the various screen elements. Windows 8's flat light-grey scroll bars on white backgrounds are VERY difficult to see and utilize and they constitute a serious step BACKWARDS in functionality and user experience.

I'm not a huge Aero fan but I have to admit there is some truth to this. I think it's definitely a minor issue, though.

No Start Button and no Start Menu.

The Start Screen /IS/ the Start Menu, like it or not, so it doesn't make sense to have both. I do think a taskbar button for the Start Screen would be immensely practical, but at the same time the "hot corners" is a go-big-or-go-home moment and making a button for the Start Screen rather than a hot corner would be yet another inconsistency in the interface. Dunno, maybe the solution is a Start Screen button on the taskbar and then use the hot corner for some other facet of the OS.

BIF wrote:Aero. Here we go, this is a HUGE one for me. Aero features and glass actually HELPED me see the various screen elements. Windows 8's flat light-grey scroll bars on white backgrounds are VERY difficult to see and utilize and they constitute a serious step BACKWARDS in functionality and user experience.

I'm not a huge Aero fan but I have to admit there is some truth to this. I think it's definitely a minor issue, though.

Hmm.... this is actually much more annoying than I thought. Multiple nactive windows that are overlapping each other can easily become indiscernible from one another.

flip-mode wrote:I inadvertently clicked instead of right-clicked the icon. A big grey panel slid out from the right side of the screen - and this seems to be standard behavior and not just what happens when there's a network problem. This big grey panel is titled "Networks" and has a heading called "Connections" and then lists your network connections. The thing is: it's totally useless. Clicking or right-clicking on anything listed in the panel does absolutely NOTHING.

Right click the listed networks and it will ask you to turn sharing on or off. If you have a Wi-Fi adapter it adds additional functionality.

flip-mode wrote:OK, about backup: well, I think it's stupidly stupid. Windows 8 "backup" is called "File History" and details can be found here:http://www.howtogeek.com/123713/how-win ... indows-7s/The way it's set up is so inconceivably dumb to me that I can't find adequately disapproving words. The big problem with it is this: it ONLY BACKS UP FILES THAT ARE ADDED TO LIBRARIES. That is level 10 ridiculous. It's not a deal breaker, but it's just so dumb that I have to rant about it because I'm the ranting type. See, I personally hate Libraries. I hate the feature. I've disabled the feature on Windows 7 from day one. Unfortunately, Microsoft has inserted the "feature" even deeper into the core of Windows 8 such that in Windows 8 the feature cannot be disabled, as far as I can tell, and seeing how the "File History" system works that makes sense. But the whole affair - File History and Libraries - is so stupid. Thankfully, "Windows 7 Backup" is still an available feature and is what I'm using to backup all of my files, which I happen to keep on a second disk (and everything - boot disk and file disk - gets backup up to a 3rd disk; this arrangement has proved useful to me).

That how to geek article is wrong. File History is not the backup replacement for Windows 8, it is the replacement for previous versions aka shadow copies that were available in Windows 7 Pro, Enterprise, and Ultimate. That is why it is limited to only the libraries.

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend. Come inside! Come inside!"

flip-mode wrote:I love the Task Manager. I love it. It's great. The coolness of the Task Manager alone can nearly balance out the other nit-picks that I've been mentioning.

I know I mentioned this before, but Process Explorer. It doesn't really balance out anything, and not having Aero sucks. Metro can be disabled, but I still haven't seen a hack to give you Aero back. If you're using a SSD, there isn't much reason for upgrading past 7, unless you really care about all the minor underlying stuff, which IMO is negligible at best. (when's the last time you actually had any malware? I haven't since XP32.) I'll likely never use any of the extras, plus some of it sounds really half-baked. The only pro is price, which might be worth avoiding just to send Microsoft a message.

IMO, Microsoft will eventually be forced to backport 8's security features due to the majority of it's userbase sticking to 7. Corporate users will put the pressure on them, and that'll be what get's it done.

Ryu Connor wrote:Right click the listed networks and it will ask you to turn sharing on or off. If you have a Wi-Fi adapter it adds additional functionality.

Hmm... I must have mis-clicked before because I swear I tried right clicking.

That how to geek article is wrong. File History is not the backup replacement for Windows 8, it is the replacement for previous versions aka shadow copies that were available in Windows 7 Pro, Enterprise, and Ultimate. That is why it is limited to only the libraries.

File History is presented as the primary backup service. So it was labeled as Shadow Copy before, but I don't see how that's supposed to matter; it's now been promoted to the primary means of backup, while "Windows 7 File Recovery" has ostensibly been demoted to "see also" status. Regardless of semantics, it's nonsensical to me that the primary backup system as presented by the OS is limited to working with Library data.

Regarding HowtoGeek's report that this was changed because so few people used backup, ha!, this changes nothing! People aren't going to suddenly take to doing backups because the name changed. The reason people don't use backup is because of cost (of a second drive) and effort (of configuring the service) and awareness (that backups are even necessary in the first place and are, in fact, so darn important to do).

flip-mode wrote:File History is presented as the primary backup service. So it was labeled as Shadow Copy before, but I don't see how that's supposed to matter; it's now been promoted to the primary means of backup, while "Windows 7 File Recovery" has ostensibly been demoted to "see also" status. Regardless of semantics, it's nonsensical to me that the primary backup system as presented by the OS is limited to working with Library data.

Regarding HowtoGeek's report that this was changed because so few people used backup, ha!, this changes nothing! People aren't going to suddenly take to doing backups because the name changed. The reason people don't use backup is because of cost (of a second drive) and effort (of configuring the service) and awareness (that backups are even necessary in the first place and are, in fact, so darn important to do).

Depends on how you define backup. Most people are happy just being able to get their documents, music, videos, and pictures back. Those four categories are folders independent of each user profile and part of the library structure. As such file history will satisfy the vast majority of users.

If you define backup by the ability to restore a system from bare metal or that uses a implementation akin to a tape backup structure, then File History isn't the primary backup. The Windows 7 Backup is the primary backup.

True neither solution solves the issue of implementation for the end user. Someone still has to pick between the two and then set it up.

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend. Come inside! Come inside!"

flip-mode wrote:I love the Task Manager. I love it. It's great. The coolness of the Task Manager alone can nearly balance out the other nit-picks that I've been mentioning.

I know I mentioned this before, but Process Explorer. It doesn't really balance out anything, and not having Aero sucks. Metro can be disabled, but I still haven't seen a hack to give you Aero back. If you're using a SSD, there isn't much reason for upgrading past 7, unless you really care about all the minor underlying stuff, which IMO is negligible at best. (when's the last time you actually had any malware? I haven't since XP32.) I'll likely never use any of the extras, plus some of it sounds really half-baked. The only pro is price, which might be worth avoiding just to send Microsoft a message.

IMO, Microsoft will eventually be forced to backport 8's security features due to the majority of it's userbase sticking to 7. Corporate users will put the pressure on them, and that'll be what get's it done.

So the only thing Aero has that isn't in Win 8 is transparent window borders. I think that's part of the reason for the streamlined window borders and 'controls' (scroll bar.) I've seen other people mention missing Aero (btw - flashbacks to XP 'omg I hate Luna, give me classic!' lol) but since the only thing missing is window border transparency, is it even worth mentioning?

MadManOriginal wrote:So the only thing Aero has that isn't in Win 8 is transparent window borders. I think that's part of the reason for the streamlined window borders and 'controls' (scroll bar.) I've seen other people mention missing Aero (btw - flashbacks to XP 'omg I hate Luna, give me classic!' lol) but since the only thing missing is window border transparency, is it even worth mentioning?

I do think that Aero is a feature that many people will miss. I thought nothing of it at first, and even still I don't care at all about transparency, but something about Windows 8 makes it possible, on occasion, for one window to blend almost completely into a window behind it. It's not the end of the world, or anything close to it, but I do think it is a legitimate annoyance. If there were some kind of color gradient or something/anything to give window borders a little bit of "pop" with respect to one another, yeah, that'd be great.

l33t-g4m3r wrote:IMO, Microsoft will eventually be forced to backport 8's security features due to the majority of it's userbase sticking to 7. Corporate users will put the pressure on them, and that'll be what get's it done.

Yeah like they were forced to backport DX10 and IE9 to XP?

That sure happened.

(My XP loving idiot/friend is absolutely convinced MS will never be able to let XP die because everyone is still using it...heh)

l33t-g4m3r wrote:IMO, Microsoft will eventually be forced to backport 8's security features due to the majority of it's userbase sticking to 7. Corporate users will put the pressure on them, and that'll be what get's it done.

Yeah like they were forced to backport DX10 and IE9 to XP?

That sure happened.

(My XP loving idiot/friend is absolutely convinced MS will never be able to let XP die because everyone is still using it...heh)

Two different things. DX10 requires Vista's driver model which isn't available in XP. IE is a joke, and totally unnecessary. Use firefox. Also, OpenGL is platform independent, and dx11 level effects can run on XP through OpenGL, provided your game supports it. Either way, XP-32 is dead from a memory support standpoint, and should be upgraded for that reason alone. But your friend is right, being that console games are generally all dx9, and 32 bit software is still the norm. XP will still be around for quite a while, and so will 7.

Microsoft should port the most important security fixes to 7, because the OS is still being supported and that would mean less hotfixes down the road. We've already seen some updates, but the rest isn't going to happen until Microsoft knows people aren't switching to 8, and companies complain about updates. Oh, there will be updates. And if anyone thinks that corporations will continue to put up with Microsoft's abuse, you're wrong. They'll switch to linux. Retailers don't need windows, and I know several like Autozone have already switched. If Valve gets the ball rolling for gaming, Microsoft won't have anything left except brand recognition and a dying reputation. The more they keep shooting themselves in the foot, the more people look for alternatives.

You know the old saying, "the customer is always right"? Well, first thing MS should have done was return the start menu. They didn't do it, and that's not respecting the users, so any lost business there is their own fault. No sympathy here. Also, bringing WinRT onto the desktop was a slap in the face to people who create and use independent software and distribution systems, so they've not only turned the consumer against them, but developers as well. No amount of cheerleading is going to fix this, only a sincere apology and fixing what they broke will suffice.

l33t-g4m3r wrote:[Two different things. DX10 requires Vista's driver model which isn't available in XP. IE is a joke, and totally unnecessary. Use firefox. Also, OpenGL is platform independent, and dx11 level effects can run on XP through OpenGL, provided your game supports it. Either way, XP-32 is dead from a memory support standpoint, and should be upgraded for that reason alone. But your friend is right, being that console games are generally all dx9, and 32 bit software is still the norm. XP will still be around for quite a while, and so will 7.

Yes, but it still had people crying for it the exact same way. Not going to happen.

How long did it take OpenGL to catch up with DX11? Three years. Fantastic. Definitely on the ball there. At this rate I expect them to take over sometime in 2921.

IE10 is actually a damn good browser for a change.

And maybe you haven't noticed but high end PC games released at the end of the year didn't even support DX9. EA hasn't supported it for some time on the high end properties, and with Ubisoft Activision and Square Enix joining in I wouldn't expect much DX9 stuff going forward.

the single thing that has completely put me off windows 8 is the fact that you can't split windows 50-50. or really any combination other than the preset 25/75. i still haven't figured out how to open 3 windows at once in any combination. googled around and it looks like 50/50 is just impossible. oh well.

having multiple windows open at once is the entire reason for using some kind of windowed operating system. the automatic 50/50 was the best feature of windows 7 that i actually use every single time my machine is booted.

seems like even the full desktop version of windows 8 is still made for tablets. it will quite honestly slow me down in my work.

willyolio wrote:the single thing that has completely put me off windows 8 is the fact that you can't split windows 50-50. or really any combination other than the preset 25/75. i still haven't figured out how to open 3 windows at once in any combination. googled around and it looks like 50/50 is just impossible. oh well.

having multiple windows open at once is the entire reason for using some kind of windowed operating system. the automatic 50/50 was the best feature of windows 7 that i actually use every single time my machine is booted.

seems like even the full desktop version of windows 8 is still made for tablets. it will quite honestly slow me down in my work.

Is the desktop in 8 that different from the desktop in 7? You lost me there.

quite, in the fact that it's more of a little appendage to the OS instead of the main platform of the OS.

windowing, window switching, launching programs... the entire desktop is an afterthought. nothing is smooth. if i don't have the icon specifically ON the desktop "app" then i'm going back into the win8 start menu (i.e. leave the screen completely) to launch the program. it interrupts my workflow/concentration. and half the time i'm not sure if i'll end up launching an "app" that will take up 25/75% of the screen to share with the rest of the desktop, or another window on my desktop.

it's not about "getting used to" things. it's like the very idea of multitasking is just one more app, and it has to compete with all the other apps you install in windows 8.